Quote:
Originally Posted by Olle
My own theory is that they did that in order to standardize the procedure, and make it more suited to process large amounts of guns. The captured guns could be anything from fresh out of the crate to battlefield pickups, and there must have been tons of guns to process as well. With so many guns of different flavors, I suspect that it was probably quicker and easier to do every gun the same way, instead of having them graded, inspected and repaired individually.
.
|
Quite the opposite. It takes far longer to rebuild individual weapons than it does to simply inspect, repair and issue.
And that premise simply does not jibe with the empirical evidence that I and most of the people I talk with have confirmed; Almost all RC capture firearms
ARE MOSTLY, (if not all) MATCHING. Only sometimes small parts are force matched to achieve function. A complete takedown and rebuild for each weapon is against all logic and simply not how government arsenals would work;
They would take a stored weapon, inspect it, determine if it is serviceable or needs work. Add the parts that are necessary, test fire and out the door. You of course are going to run into basket cases that are going to be built up from a hodge-podge of parts, but they are the exception, not the norm.